Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian Internet Surveillance Bill Could Come Back In New Form

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the this-is-not-even-my-true-form dept.

Canada 30

An anonymous reader writes "Canadian Justice Minister Rob Nicholson announced yesterday that the government will not be proceeding with Bill C-30, the lawful access/Internet surveillance legislation. Yet despite the celebration of the Canadian Internet community, Michael Geist notes that the law could return. On the same day the government put the bill out its misery, it introduced Bill C-55 on warrantless wiretapping. Although the bill is ostensibly a response to last year's R v. Tse decision from the Supreme Court of Canada, much of the bill is lifted directly from Bill C-30. Moreover, there will be other ways to revive the more troublesome Internet surveillance provisions. Christopher Parsons points to lawful intercept requirements in the forthcoming spectrum auction, while many others have discussed Bill C-12, which includes provisions that encourage personal information disclosure without court oversight. Of course, cynics might also point to the 2007 pledge from then-Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day to not introduce mandatory disclosure of personal information without a warrant. That position was dropped soon after a new minister took over the portfolio."

cancel ×

30 comments

they always do (3, Interesting)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874805)

A lot of these bad bills just keep coming back until they get passed in some form. And if they can't be passed domestically, its provisions may simply be included in some international agreement, trying to force Congress' hand. Or, alternatively, the president may try to get most provisions passed through executive order or regulatory powers.

Of course, many people are rather inconsistent in how they feel about this. If this is about a cause they favor, they applaud such underhanded tactics; if it's about a cause they disfavor, they complain about "lobbyists" and "the end of democracy".

Re:they always do (4, Informative)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875655)

Well, first, we're talking about Canada.

Second, and this is critical, they can pass any laws they want, but that doesn't mean they're legal. The fact is that warrantless wiretapping in Canada is unlawful NO MATTER WHAT NEW LAWS THEY PASS. The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down laws that aren't acceptable, and one notable ruling was a mandatory sentence which was ignored the same day the law was assented. The ink was literally still wet on the Governor General's signature. (I mean "literally" in the English Composition sense, not the Interweb vernacular)

We have a Constitution, and ours is from 1982, so we can actually ask the asshole who got it signed. Highlights are that it says right in there that it's the highest law in the land, end of story. In there, you have the right to privacy. Frankly, anybody who gets convicted on something found by a warrantless wiretap will end up walking because it's just not lawful.

Finally, our governments in the US and Canada think that anything that's not in the Constitution is free game, and that's totally wrong. The Constitution is the only document that allows the government to exist at all. If they don't follow the only laws that let them make choices for us, it's time to kill them all -- every last one of them -- and leave their corpses hanging from the legislature as a warning to others.

Don't burn down the building and salt the land though, it's a heritage building and can't be replaced.

Re:they always do (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#42876647)

Well, first, we're talking about Canada.

Yup. The same mechanisms operate in Canada and other nations.

Second, and this is critical, they can pass any laws they want, but that doesn't mean they're legal. The fact is that warrantless wiretapping in Canada is unlawful NO MATTER WHAT NEW LAWS THEY PASS.

Obama being judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens is illegal according to the Constitution. Bush's program of torture was illegal according to the Constitution. So, good luck with that argument.

Re:they always do (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42880425)

"Obama being judge, jury, and executioner of American citizens is illegal according to the Constitution. Bush's program of torture was illegal according to the Constitution."

Do you even listen to yourself? What does that have to do with CANADA!?

Harper wants a police state like the US has. (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874837)

Why else would you want no court oversight?

After the G8/G20 secret laws being enforced, you have to wonder:

What the fsck are they doing on parliament hill?

We've already seen abuse of current police powers (2)

kawabago (551139) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875171)

Giving Police more power will corrupt them further. Legislators must remember that there are bad police officers who will abuse any power they are given. There has to be some counterbalance to the police or justice will fail.

Re:We've already seen abuse of current police powe (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875219)

Actually what legislators should realize is that even good cops abuse their powers. Police have a very narrow focus, and often seem to view civil liberties as intrusions into their ability to do their job. Bad cops are the least of my worries.

At Least the Canucks Will Vote On It (5, Interesting)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42874885)

Unlike here in Amerika, where Emperor Hirohi-, er, Obama, will be forcing CISPA down our throats Wednesday, via an executive order... [unitedliberty.org]

Re:At Least the Canucks Will Vote On It (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42875097)

I am a "Canuck", and no, we don't get to vote on things like this. The majority government and King Harper can pretty much cram anything they want down our throats.

Re:At Least the Canucks Will Vote On It (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875241)

"sources" say, anyway.

Re:At Least the Canucks Will Vote On It (1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875271)

Yeah, Canadian's don't vote on policy, we just have to pick the right jerk to represent us and hope for the best, and we can't even do that right.

Re:At Least the Canucks Will Vote On It (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875573)

Yeah, Canadian's don't vote on policy, we just have to pick the right jerk to represent us and hope for the best, and we can't even do that right.

... are you sure you're not Amerikan?

Re:At Least the Canucks Will Vote On It (4, Informative)

Beerdood (1451859) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875543)

What? We don't get to vote on this - this isn't a referendum. Harper and the conservatives have a majority government, they can vote whatever they want in.

Or do you mean the MPs will vote on this? Sure they will. But the end result is really no different than an "executive order from harper". Canadian MPs virtually never vote against their own party [theglobeandmail.com] . They vote against their own party less than 0.5% of the time, if EVER.

The only reason Bill C-30 didn't go through was because Harper and his crew didn't like the negative press that was received by the bill (Facebook posts, Michael Geist blogs, etc..); the conservatives COULD have passed it but ultimately they'd like to win another election again. So they can this bill due to public outcry (damage control), but simply try to sneak in the same provisions in Bill C-55. On the same day no less.

Re:At Least the Canucks Will Vote On It (1)

quacking duck (607555) | about a year and a half ago | (#42883069)

The only reason Bill C-30 didn't go through was because Harper and his crew didn't like the negative press that was received by the bill (Facebook posts, Michael Geist blogs, etc..); the conservatives COULD have passed it but ultimately they'd like to win another election again. So they can this bill due to public outcry (damage control), but simply try to sneak in the same provisions in Bill C-55. On the same day no less.

"Negative press"? Hardly. Harper couldn't give any less a damn to any of that.

What did happen was that Minister Toews stirred up a hornet's nest within the Conservative party itself and their major supporters. Oddly enough, when many on the right opposed the bill along with left, they didn't appreciate being labeled by Toews as supporters of child pornographers.

At that point C-30 was poisoned and could not pass under that name, and they had to transplant most of the provisions into a new one.

Re:At Least the Canucks Will Vote On It (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42875551)

So - is this the hope & change 51% of Americans were looking for?

It takes a special type of person to make Bush look not so bad.

Treating symptoms (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875099)

That law is stopped, but more are coming. What must be stopped is the source of that laws, who are the people promoting them, their lobbyist or their advisors. What if a slavery law is promoted in such language that the ones that could wish to oppose aren't just aware of its full meaning and let it pass? There is no consequences of trying and trying again till it passes for the promoters of such laws?

Re:Treating symptoms (2)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875303)

Bad laws never die, they just get renamed.

Re:Treating symptoms (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875599)

Bad laws never die, they just get renamed.

... For the Children

Re:Treating symptoms (1)

dryeo (100693) | about a year and a half ago | (#42877231)

Or to catch those horrible terrorists.

Re:Treating symptoms (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about a year and a half ago | (#42885081)

Or to catch those horrible terrorists.

I think you meant to say 'and catch those horrible terrorists.'

That way, it's twice as likely to get voter approval, amirite?

I love living in Canada... (-1)

TheSkepticalOptimist (898384) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875263)

...a country desperately wanting to become communist...

but with none of the perks

Re:I love living in Canada... (4, Insightful)

qeveren (318805) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875415)

I'm not sure you quite know what "Communism" is...

Re:I love living in Canada... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42875499)

Then that explains why Canadians seem to be moving towards it.

Re:I love living in Canada... (0)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875673)

It's American TV. They conflate fascist and communist all the time.

warrantless wiretapping (2)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875301)

If it didn't pass for the telephone, why should it exist for Internet?

Come on how (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875465)

think of the children.

Re:Come on how (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42879911)

Hey "future assassin", I think we've got a job for you in all this.

Re:warrantless wiretapping (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875575)

If it didn't pass for the telephone, why should it exist for Internet?

That's the thing though, it did pass for the telephone. In fact it was on the books for nearly 60 years via cc 184.4 , but required exigent circumstances. The SCC struck it down as over-reaching though.

Re:warrantless wiretapping (1)

RussR42 (779993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42875747)

smbc [smbc-comics.com] about it.

Dear Harperite jerkwads: (1)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | about a year and a half ago | (#42877207)

FUCK YOU.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...